Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.79 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499) | |
Matt Grum wrote:
Fuji will sell far more GFXs to amateurs than professionals, purely on the basis that there are orders of magnitude more users in that category (this is true of a lot of "professional" equipment).
Also if you are working predominantly in the studio you'll either be using a DSLR for the speed they offer or you will have a medium format system that you're already tied into. I can't really see the appeal of the GFX to studio photographers who aren't really concerned about weight or portability, for the same money you can get a PhaseOne P65+ outfit with body, back and lens.
The GFX is geared towards and will be used mostly by landscape/cityscape photographers.
Their 56mm f/1.2 seems ambitious but considering correcting for lower f-number is equivalent in difficultly to designing for the larger image circle of the 35mm format, it's akin to Canon announcing an f/1.8 lens (not saying it's a bad lens at all, quite the opposite, it's just not pushing the envelope in terms of f-stop considering the image circle, which is also fine shallow depth of field is not everything).
I'd be frankly astonished if Fuji came out with an f/1.4 lens for the GFX, especially one wider than 50mm. I don't think it's a big assumption given the way the industry is at the moment, the major manufacturers are being cautious and making very predictable releases. I will back it up to say that if they do release an f/1.4 I will come on here an eat a hat (and photograph it with the GFX), so bookmark this post now!
...Show more →
First, I think that you and I just disagree about who is going to buy this camera. It is $6,500. You may be right that it will be primarily amateurs, but I think Fuji would like to tap the professional market with this camera. I also think that the amateur/professional distinction is not always so easy to make. What do you call a stay at home dad that I know who shoots primarily senior pictures and a couple of weddings a year and makes about $30,000 a year? Perhaps you would see him as an amateur, but the distinction isn't always clear. Anyway, I think the camera will be sold to a lot of different people and exactly who is going to buy the camera is hard to know at this point. You seem very sure in your opinions about everything regarding this camera and I wonder where this certainty comes from and whether it isn't just a tad misplaced.
Second, I want to correct a couple of factual errors in this point, or what I think are factual errors. You say, "for the same money you can get a PhaseOne P65+ outfit with body, back and lens." You're joking right. Just that back, used, can go for $10,000. For example at this link:
http://www.digitalback.com/product-category/0-pre-owned-digital-backs/
It is a pretty big exaggeration it seems to me to suggest that you can get not only the back, but a body and a lens for $6,500.
You also claim, that, "correcting for lower f-number is equivalent in difficultly to designing for the larger image circle of the 35mm format." I believe that is just totally wrong. I have seen several lens designers comment that lowering the f-number increases the aberrations exponentially. Increasing the image circle is focal length depend and is harder at shorter focal lengths than longer focal lengths, but I have never seen any indication that increasing the image circle increases aberrations exponentially. I believe at longer than normal the increase is just linear and if that reasoning is correct it is a huge misstatement to equate an exponential increase with a linear increase. Simply put it is much harder to decrease the aperture than to increase the image circle for a longer than normal lens There is no question it is much harder to make an 56 f/1.2 lens for APS-C than an 85 f/1.8 lens for FF 35mm, that you equate the difficulty seems to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of lens design or just an attempt to over argue your case. I suspect it is the latter as in the past we have agreed that it is harder to increase the size of the aperture than it is to increase the size of the image circle.
You also claim, "the major manufacturers are being cautious and making very predictable releases." I think you may have missed some of the recent releases. Let's see within the last two years Zeiss has released a 28mm f/1.4 APO, lens; Nikon has released a 100 f/1.4 lens; Canon has released a much enhanced 35 f/1.4 lens with a new type of glass and an 11-24mm f/2.8 zoom, Leica has released a very small 28 f/1.4 lens, Cosina Voigtlander has announced a 40 f/1.2 and a 65 f/2 APO macro, Sigma has released a whole suite of Art lenses included an f/2 zoom and a 135 f/1.8 prime. I am sorry but although there have certainly been cautious and predictable releases, I also see a number of releases that have pushed the boundaries..
So, if you dismiss the factually inaccurate statements in your post can see that more professional might be interested in the camera than you expect because it is much cheaper than Medium format digital backs. It is not nearly as hard to make f/1.4 lens as you suspect because increasing the image circle of already existing designs for 35mm FF is not nearly as hard an increasing the maximum aperture of these lenses. For example, we already know that one 85mm f/1.2 design (the quite old by now nFD 85L) covers the mini MF image circle at f/1.2. So, I think you greatly overstate you case that such fast lenses won't be coming. I won't hold you to eating a hat, but unless you really like doing that sort of thing I would be a bit more cautious in your proclamations.
We of course do not know what Fuji will make beyond the six lenses they have announced. I agree with Lee that a 35 or maybe a 30 f/2.8 is likely the next lens, but I would not be surprised at all if they make a 70 f/1.4. I think a 50 f/1.4 would not be surprising at all either. I agree it would be pushing the boundaries pretty far for a 40 or 35 f/1.4, but I think that could happen and I think it is more likely than not that we could get at least a 40 f/2.
|
).